We may share a common primitive base with animals and morals may have developed in a social network and for the good of that network. I would say that these things are put in place by a God for the good of whatever society it is, but that is not a view shared by all. I doubt that with any animal it is actually morals involved. If us humans are no more than the animals except for higher brain function then we have a basis for our moral feelings and their subsequently being encoded one way or another. If you want to say that the good of society is the absolute you use then that is good but as I say we come at the good of society from different points of view as to what is good.
It seems that the difference in that, is that I come at it from a starting position based on evidence, while theists come at it with a starting position in mere faith based beliefs.
I can honestly say that I consider my starting point to be superior, while the faith based starting point is inherently flawed.
Do you think that all the moral propositions of my God should be able to stand up to the societal good reasoning test
Hmm. Well... I'ld say that if the "societal good reasoning test" is the standard against the "god propositions" must be measured, then why even bother with the "god propositions"... instead, we can (and should) just go with the reasoning test instead.
and do you think that some of those propositions do not?
Obviously. And they aren't even hard to find. Homophobia and slavery comes to mind (in relation to "biblical morality").
The subjective ingredient is that the good of society is the ultimate good. Some people see their own betterment or their own feelings as being the ultimate good.
This fails at the reasoning test imo.
Morality is about how you treat or deal with
other people.
Selfish behaviour by definition is counter to that, as you will be sacrificing good treatment of others in favor of personal gain.
That is a good reference point but as I say well being can be seen in different ways.
I disagree.
It's not like there are 100 definitions of what well-being is about.
It deals with health in all its forms: physical health, mental health, societal health,..
I don't think these things are a matter of "opinion".
And yes you are talking about a morality which is free from the poison of religions etc and your reference point is a good one with that in mind but as I said it may not necessarily come up with the same answers all the time. For the sake of the well being of many nations even murder of certain people has been seen as appropriate.
I never said that a reasoned morality will always come up with the same perfect answers.
At best, I'ld say that it would come up with far better answers, in general, as opposed to a superimposed and unquestionable morality dictated by a perceived authority.